...that make a Mike Vanderboegh response a necessary part of the toolkit, regardless of any condemnation you might hear from the more amenable. And incidentally, 45superman confirmed what I suspected and would have reported on yesterday had I not been locked out: All the PSH over that, and I mean all of it, came from that camp.
When a paper bills itself as "You Progressive Voice," I have no problem speaking to communists and their supporters like the genocide-enabling dogs they are.
That includes you, Amitai. That you fled from Nazi Germany and yet still embrace "gun control" and"communitarianism" as "a carefully crafted balance between rights and responsibilities and autonomy and order" makes you especially contemptible.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Holy Christ ... what a blind sheep. Can we throw him to the wolves first as a meat shield?
People like that sicken me. Hopefully he'll get hit by a bus.
A rapid responder knocked it out of the park w/r/t v. Miller 1939. Good on him.
It the same old thing. I need to write a computer program to keep reposting the corrections whenever these folks attempt truth-through-repetition...
if {(search_text "Etzioni") && (search_text "gun")} {
upload("290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf")
print("Please review before publishing unsupported facts.")
print("Thanks a bunch.")
}
I see they're also still arguing that what rights are restricted after trial and conviction in the courts may be forced on the public at large without due process or even reasonable suspicion of a crime.
But this commenter blew a fuse in my brain:
"...the right of ALL citizens to perform military service also "shall not be infringed""
Ladies and gentlemen, we have arrive- Ow. Er... in a new era of Pro Se... OW! I'm sorry, I can't finish that thought. My mind hurts.
As usual, my comment got 'moderated'. I don't know why I bother, but I do.
III
Comrade Etzioni correctly interprets Heller, at least as far as that the ruling allows -- nay, specifically protects -- "reasonable restrictions" that effectively ban guns. The Supreme Court was VERY clear and specific that localities can REGULATE handguns though they cannot outright BAN them.
We know the other side favors a $10 PER ROUND ammunition tax, impossible qualification tests to buy a gun -- along with requiring a license to TOUCH a gun at a range, thereby creating an impossible Catch-22 situation: you can't pass the competency test without shooting,and you can't shoot without the license that comes after passing the competency test -- plus you-name-it ways of harassing and barring would-be LAW-ABIDING gun owners.
It is impossible for any thinking person to separate the right to armed self-defense from the right to life itself. They APPEAR to think, but it's all circular logic and doublespeak.
I believe there are enough Second Amendment purists to keep them from having their way. They make themselves heard with great clarity whenever comments are allowed after articles like Etzioni's. They seem to outnumber the Euro-peon outlook by about 9-to-1. I am pretty convinced that when talk no longer makes a difference, they will make their convictions known that other way.
THEY want US helpless. WE just want THEM to leave us alone. It's obvious who's the good guys.
What our posterity thinks of us matters little. I only know my great-great-grandfather's name because I looked it up. I don't know ANYTHING else about him. In 100 years, OUR great-great-grandchildren will only know they're free, even if they never know why, and who left them that way.
God save the republic. We'll help.
Post a Comment